FAQs

License Exception BAG authorizes a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident alien leaving the U.S. to export or reexport shotguns with a barrel length 18 inches or over and shotgun shells provided no more than three shotguns are taken on any one trip; the shotguns and shotgun shells must be with the person's baggage (may not be mailed) and they must be for the person's exclusive legitimate use. See section 740.14(e) of the EAR for specific requirements in the use of BAG.

License Exception BAG allows a nonresident alien leaving the U.S. to export or reexport shotguns and shotgun shells he or she has brought into the United States under the provisions of the Department of Justice Regulations. See section 740.14(e) of the EAR for specific requirements in the use of BAG.

Please consult with the proper authorities when exporting such items from Canada and importing them into the United States to determine requirements. For example, prior to importing firearms into the United States, you should contact the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding import permits at http://www.atf.gov/ . You should also contact Canada's Export and Import Permits Bureau regarding export permits at 613-996-2387 or go to http://www.international.gc.ca.

Like shipments to U.S. embassies overseas, shipments to non-U.S. Embassies outside the United States are exports or reexports to the host country. For example, an export from the United States to the French Embassy in Germany is an export to Germany. License requirements are those that are applicable to the host country. There may also be relevant license exception availability (see below).

Note, however, that BIS does not treat the shipment of items via official diplomatic pouch to an embassy or consulate in a third country (host country) as a transaction covered by the destination-based licensing requirements set forth in the EAR. So long as the items remain within the ownership and control of the embassy or consulate in the host country, no license is required under the EAR. The items may also be returned to the home country via diplomatic pouch or shipped to other foreign embassies and consulates via diplomatic pouch without authorization from BIS. However, if the embassy or consulate resells or disposes of the items locally in the host country, licensing requirements set forth in the EAR for exports to the host country would be implicated. Similarly, reselling or disposing the items to end users outside of the host country would implicate reexport licensing requirements set forth in the EAR, to the extent the items are not shipped via diplomatic pouch.

For purposes of the EAR, a commercial shipment to a U.S. Embassy located outside the United States is an export or reexport to the country in which the U.S. Embassy is located (the host country). For example, a shipment from the United States to the U.S. Embassy in Germany is an export to Germany. BIS may require a license under the EAR for such an export, based on the classification of the items involved and the license requirements applicable to the particular host country.

Most transactions involving the export or reexport of items subject to the EAR to host countries that are subject to multilateral or unilateral economic sanctions require a license, as described in the specific regulatory provisions relevant to each such destination, generally found in Parts 742 and/or 746 of the EAR. However, if a host country is subject to economic sanctions implemented by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC), regulations maintained by OFAC may also restrict the transaction. Exporters are advised to contact OFAC for further clarification. OFAC may be contacted at 1-800-540-6322.

For purposes of the EAR, shipments to embassies abroad are considered exports or reexports to the host country, even in the case of an embassy of a country subject to multilateral or unilateral economic sanctions. However, regulations maintained by OFAC may also restrict a transaction of this nature. Exporters are advised to contact OFAC for further clarification. OFAC may be contacted at 1-800-540-6322.

Yes, exports to non-U.S. embassies outside the United States may be eligible for License Exception GOV as described in Section 740.11 of the EAR.

GOV also authorizes the export of certain items to a “diplomatic or consular mission” of a cooperating government for official use within the territory of a country in Country Group B (Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 of the EAR). Cooperating governments are those listed in Country Group A:1 (Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR) as well as the governments of Argentina, Austria, Finland, Hong Kong, Ireland, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore, and Taiwan. For example, GOV would authorize certain exports to the French Embassy in India because France is a cooperating government and India is a Country Group B country.

GOV does not authorize, however, the export of items to cooperating government embassies located outside of cooperating government or Country Group B destinations. For example, an export to the French Embassy in Belarus would not be authorized under GOV because while France is a cooperating government, Belarus is not listed in Country Group B. Such exports may, however, be eligible for other License Exceptions, including License Exception CIV (Section 740.5 of the EAR) which authorizes certain exports for civilian use in Country Group D countries.

Items eligible to be exported or reexported pursuant to these provisions of License Exception GOV are described in Supplement No. 1 to Section 740.11 of the EAR.

Yes. These shipments are exports because they are being shipped to destinations outside the United States. License requirements are those that are applicable to the destination. Certain license exceptions may also be available.

For purposes of the EAR, shipments to embassies abroad are considered exports or reexports to the host country. License requirements for exports or reexports to the home country of the embassy are not directly applicable. However, exporters are reminded to pay particular attention to the presence of “red flags” as described in Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR. Information about a proposed transaction may suggest that the embassy is not the true ultimate destination of the shipment. For purposes of the EAR, the export or reexport of items subject to the EAR that will be transshipped in a country or countries to a new country or are intended for reexport to the new country are deemed to be exports to the new country.

The term “deemed re-export” is often used to indicate the transfer of controlled U.S. technology to a third-country national overseas. As an example, a U.S. exporter transfers its controlled proprietary technology to a firm in country A. The firm in country A, in turn, employs an individual from country B who is not a permanent employee of the firm in country A and who will need the controlled proprietary technology to perform his or her assigned duties. Before transferring this controlled technology to the country B employee, the firm in country A is responsible for obtaining any required deemed re-export licenses as if it were transferring the technology to country B. Please see Section 734.2(b)(4) of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

When submitting a deemed export license application, BIS recommends for every foreign national contained on the license application, the applicant or third party submitter include the US state name abbreviation immediately following the city name in either the ultimate consignee and/or end-user address blocks of the BIS-748P. The state name abbreviation should denote the locale that the foreign national will be visiting and the country name should denote the foreign country domicile where the foreign national claims citizenship. BIS recommends this data entry method because placing the state code together with the city name results in the proper display of the foreign national address information on the final validated license.

Per Part 772 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), "technology" is information necessary for the "development," "production," "use" operation, installation, maintenance, repair, overhaul, or refurbishing (or other terms specified in ECCNs on the CCL that control “technology”) of an item. The General Technology Note (Supplement No. 2 to part 774 of the EAR) states that the "export of technology" is controlled according to the provisions of each Category." It further states that "technology required for the development, production, or use of a controlled product remains controlled even when applicable to a product controlled at a lower level." Please note that the terms "required," "development," "production," "use," and "technology" are all defined in Part 772 of the EAR. Controlled technology is that which is defined in the General Technology Note and in the Commerce Control List (Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the EAR).

Assuming that a license is required because the technology does not qualify for treatment under EAR99 and no license exception is available, U.S. entities must apply for an export license under the deemed export regulations when both of the following conditions are met: (1) they intend to transfer controlled technologies to foreign nationals in the United States; and (2) transfer of the same technology to the foreign national's home country would require an export license.

Any foreign national is subject to the deemed export regulations except a foreign national who (1) is granted permanent residence, as demonstrated by the issuance of a permanent resident visa (i.e., Green Card); or (2) is granted U.S. citizenship; or (3) is granted status as a protected person under 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3). This includes all persons in the U.S. as tourists, students, businesspeople, scholars, researchers, technical experts, sailors, airline personnel, salespeople, military personnel, diplomats, etc. As noted, one exception to this general statement is a protected person. Protected persons include political refugees and political asylum holders. Be aware that individuals seeking protected person status must satisfy all of the terms and conditions that are fully set forth in 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3). It should be emphasized that although the deemed export regulations may be triggered, this does not necessarily mean that a license is required. For example, the technology may be EAR99 or license exception eligible.

As noted above, if the individual is a naturalized citizen or permanent resident of the United States, the deemed export regulations do not apply. In other words, he or she is not subject to the provisions of the deemed export regulation. For individuals who are citizens of more than one foreign country, or have citizenship in one foreign country and permanent residence in another, as a general policy, the last permanent resident status or citizenship obtained governs. Questions below provide examples of situations involving individuals who are citizens of more than one foreign country, or have citizenship in one foreign country and permanent residence in another. If, for some reason, the status of a foreign national is not certain, then you should ask the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), to determine where the stronger ties lie, based on the facts of the specific case. For instance, the status of a foreign national could be uncertain in situations where information may indicate involvement with prohibited entities or activities, for example, missile or nuclear-related end-uses or end-users as identified in Part 744 of the EAR. In response to a request for the status of a foreign national, BIS will look at the foreign national's family, professional, financial, and employment ties.

Release of controlled technology to that individual in the U.K. would be treated as if the shipment were being made to the U.K. and licensing requirements, if any, would be the same as for a British national in the U.K.

As a general principle, the last citizenship obtained governs. As is clear in response to the Question above, the individual's most recent citizenship is with the U.K. and releases of technology would be viewed as releases to the U.K.

The information we normally request derives from a curriculum vitae/resume or from company background checks. The information that BIS may request as part of the license application process is requested in order to determine whether BIS should authorize the release of such controlled sensitive technology. The hiring of foreign nationals is not prohibited or regulated by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The EAR does not regulate employment matters. The justification for the deemed export regulations is that there is no more effective way of disclosing sensitive technical information (e.g., design know-how) than to work side-by-side in a laboratory or on the production floor of a company. Our web page guidance is designed to assist you in pointing out the types of relevant information that BIS examines in connection with the license application review.

Generally, technologies subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) are those which are in the United States or of U.S. origin, in whole or in part. Most are proprietary. Technologies which tend to require licensing for transfer to foreign nationals are also dual-use (i.e., have both civil and military applications) and are subject to one or more control regimes, such as National Security, Nuclear Proliferation, Missile Technology, or Chemical and Biological Warfare.

Foreign technology with U.S.-origin technology commingled to a degree above a de minimis level is considered to be subject to the EAR. Technologies which may require an export license are those which are subject to the EAR and which are listed in the Commerce Control List, see Parts 734, 738, and 774 of the EAR.

Some technologies are under the exclusive jurisdiction of another agency of the U.S. government and are not subject to the EAR. These include defense services which are under the jurisdiction of the State Department and technology related to the production of special nuclear materials which is under the jurisdiction of the Energy Department.

Still other technologies do not require any authorization because they are already published. These include patent applications; published technology and software (other than software and technology controlled as encryption items) that are already published or will be published; or technology which arises during or as a result of fundamental research. See Part 734 of the EAR for details.

The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) definitions distinguish between software and technology. Software is one of the groups within each of the categories of items listed on the Commerce Control List (CCL). Software which is delineated on the CCL is controlled.

"Fundamental research" means research in science, engineering, or mathematics, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the research community, and for which the researchers have not accepted restrictions for proprietary or national security reasons. It is distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilizations, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary and/or specific national security reasons. Normally, the results of "fundamental research" are published in scientific literature, thus making it publicly available. Research which is intended for publication, whether it is ever accepted by scientific journals or not, is considered to be "fundamental research." A large segment of academic research is considered "fundamental research." Because any information, technological or otherwise, that is published is not subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (except for encryption object code and source code) and thus does not require a license, "fundamental research" is not subject to the EAR and does not require a license. Please see §734.8 for a full discussion.

If he or she is properly documented for work in the United States, you may employ him or her. You must apply for an export license if you intend to release technology listed on the Commerce Control List which would require a license for export to India.

Yes, you are required to apply for a deemed export license. Under the sanctions imposed by the U.S. Government, any export which includes transfers of technology to foreign nationals requires a license to organizations on the Entity List. Because the Indian foreign national is still employed by the organization that is on the Entity List, a technology transfer to him or her is considered a technology transfer to the employer organization. Note that the sanctions apply to any technology subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

There are two changes that were made to the text. First, Notes were added to the entry for the “technology” for the “development” of “intrusion software”. The note clarifies that technology exchanged for vulnerability disclosure or cyber incident response purposes (as defined) are not controlled.

The second change is a Note added to the 4.D.4 control on the command and delivery platform for “intrusion software”. The note clarifies that software that provides software updates or upgrades are not controlled by the entry, as long as the software is not designed to update “intrusion software” or command and delivery platforms, or turn something into “intrusion software” or a command and delivery platform.

No. These are the changes that we have been able to get agreement on, at this time, with other Wassenaar Arrangement members and do not address all of the concerns raised. BIS considers these changes to be the first step in addressing the concerns.

No. The text that was published was the text that was agreed to by the Wassenaar Arrangement. In order for it to become law in the U.S. the U.S. government would need to publish a rule implementing these changes. Because no rule has been published yet, there are no new controls on these entries at this time.

We have not decided on a next step yet. There are a range of possible actions we could take, including returning to Wassenaar in 2018 to negotiate further changes to the text, publishing a rule to implement the text, or publishing a notice of inquiry or proposed rule for further comment.

§746.5 of the EAR, imposes licensing requirements on eight export control classification numbers (ECCN)) and fifty-three Schedule B numbers if a person knows (or is informed by BIS) that the item will be used directly or indirectly in exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in:

a. Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet);

b. Arctic offshore locations;

c. Shale formations in Russia; or

d. Is unable to determine whether the item will be used in the aforementioned projects.

A licensing policy of presumption of denial applies for exports, reexports, or transfer (in-country) for the aforementioned projects that have the potential to produce oil. A licensing policy of case-by-case review applies for such projects that have the potential to produce gas.

If the item is not listed in EAR §746.5 by ECCN or in Supplement No. 2 to Part 746 –“Russian Industry Sector Sanctions List” - by Schedule B number, then the sanctions do not impose any additional license requirements or exclusions on the use of EAR license exceptions. However, in making any license determination, the full scope of EAR license requirements needs to be taken into account before making a No License Required (NLR) determination, including license requirements in Part 744 of the EAR.

BIS will apply the licensing policy set forth in §746.5, "Russian Industry Sector Sanctions," to the review of all license applications for controlled items going to Russia. If the commodity, software, or technology on the license application requires a license to Russia, and if the item will be used in an activity described in §746.5(b), the license will be reviewed consistent with licensing policy in §746.5. The licensing policy in §746.5 will also be applied to license applications for items requiring a license for export, re-export or transfer to Russia that are other than those controlled under the eight ECCNs or listed in the fifty three Schedule B numbers and that are destined for any of the four prohibited end-use categories listed above.

Russia includes the territory of Russia and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the Government of Russia claims sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Russia exercises partial or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements.

Russia includes the territory of Russia and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the Government of Russia claims sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Russia exercises partial or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements.

Would an intra-company transfer of any of the items listed by ECCN in §746.5 or by Schedule B number in Supplement No. 2 to part 746 of the EAR be prohibited if the listed item was being moved within Russia as a transfer (in-country), for one of the restricted uses? Many oilfield services companies have inventory positioned at in-country hubs, and will use the items in inventory for providing services in Russia.

The controls set forth in §746.5 cover in-country transfers. If the transaction in Russia also involved a transfer (in-country) as defined in §772.1 of the EAR, then the EAR license requirements and restrictions on the use of license exceptions in §746.5(c) would also apply. OFAC has also implemented sanctions specific to energy production activities, including those related to providing services for such activities. Any questions regarding OFAC’s sanctions should be directed to OFAC.

When §746.5 refers to shale and uses the terms exploration or production in shale, do the restricted end uses apply only to situations, such as fracking, where the hydrocarbon is located in shale formations, or do they also apply to projects involving penetrating a layer of shale to reach a reservoir located below the shale formation? What about projects that involve unconventional methods of extracting oil from shale (e.g., from shale reservoirs or oil shale processing)?

The license requirements of §746.5 of the EAR apply to the specified items when you know that the item will be used directly or indirectly in exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet) or Arctic offshore locations or shale formations in Russia, or are unable to determine whether the item will be used in such projects. Thus, the license requirement applies to exploration for, or production of, oil or gas from a shale formation. The license requirement does not apply to exploration or production through shale to locate or extract crude oil or gas in reservoirs.

The Schedule B numbers affected are in the EAR’s Supplement No. 2 to Part 746: “Russian Industry Sector Sanction List”, which can be found here. The source for the Schedule B numbers and descriptions in BIS’s list comes from the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census’s Schedule B List which can be found here. The Introduction Chapter of the Schedule B provides important information about classifying products and interpretations of the Schedule B (e.g., NESOI means Not Elsewhere Specified or Included). In addition, important information about products within a particular chapter may be found at the beginning of each chapter.

No, that is not correct. The scope of the ECCN is limited by the control parameters included in the ECCN. The scope of the license requirements for ECCN 0A998 is limited to the license requirements in §746.5 of the EAR, which specifies the license requirements and license review policy that apply to the items identified in that section, including new ECCN 0A998. Note however, that if you propose to export, reexport or transfer (in-country) seismic data, equipment or software to Russia but do not know what type of project the items will be used in, a license is required. Also note that in making a license determination under the EAR, the full scope of the EAR license requirements need to be considered, including those in Part 744 that in certain cases impose a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR when the items are for certain prohibited end uses or end users as defined in Part 744.

Yes, software for the design and analysis of hydraulic fracturing is the only software controlled in ECCN 0A998. Note that BIS is making an exception to its general policy of not including software in "A" product group ECCNs and is including this software in ECCN 0A998.

For purposes of §746.5, oil and gas exploration data is treated as a commodity, not software or technology. Therefore, the scenario described would not trigger the one-time reporting requirement, as specified in §734.4. In addition, the de minimis procedures for commodities would apply (see §734.4 and Supplement No. 2 to part 734 for information on the EAR’s de minimis provisions and the procedures for making de minimis calculations). However, regardless of whether the data being processed was subject to the EAR, providing such a service by a U.S. person for such end uses in Russia would in most cases likely be prohibited by OFAC. As noted above, questions specific to the OFAC restrictions, should be directed to OFAC.

The U.S. Government is aware that there are different depths for what is considered deep water. The "greater than 500 feet" standard is a bright line standard that is used by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Management for what constitutes deep water, and helped to inform BIS’s decision to use "greater than 500 feet" as part of the criteria in §746.5 of the EAR. For reference, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s, Bureau of Ocean Management outlines the criteria for what constitutes deep water here.

The high pressure pumps controlled under ECCN 0A998.b.3 are not limited to fracking operations, but include all those that will be used directly or indirectly in exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet) or Arctic offshore locations or shale formations in Russia or that will be used in an unknown end use. Keep in mind that any pump that is listed under a Schedule B number in Supplement No. 2 to part 746 and any pump classified under an ECCN that requires a license to Russia is also subject to §746.5.

The rule does not apply to or prohibit the transshipment through Russia items identified in §746.5 of the EAR if the items are intended for use in oil and gas activities in third countries. Parties to the transaction should be diligent to be aware of any red flags in the transaction that indicate the items may be intended for any prohibitions under §746.5 or intended for other prohibited purposes under the EAR.

The only license exception available to ship the items identified in §746.5 of the EAR is §740.11(b), a subparagraph of license exception “Government, international organizations, international inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the International Space Station” (GOV).

The applicability of de minimis is not end-user/use based. It is destination based. Therefore, the items that are subject to license requirements under §746.5 of the EAR should not be included as controlled content in calculating the de minimis percentage of an item proposed for re-export to Russia.

The following language will be included on every license issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS): "Unless limited by a condition set forth below, the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) authorized by this license is for the item(s), end-use(s), and parties described in the license application and any letters of explanation. The applicant is responsible for informing the other parties identified on the license, such as ultimate consignees and end-users, of the license's scope and of the specific conditions applicable to them. BIS has granted this license in reliance on representations the applicant made in the license application, letters of explanation, and other documents submitted."

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), in coordination with our interagency partners, made the change as part of our ongoing efforts to rationalize and make more consistent the use of conditions on BIS licenses. The purpose of the change is to eliminate, to the greatest extent possible, the inclusion of requirements and prohibitions included in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) as conditions on validated licenses. BIS is eliminating conditions specifying requirements and prohibitions included in the EAR from licenses because the EAR's conditions and requirements are applicable to all exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR as a matter of law; inclusion of such conditions on licenses is redundant.

As the new language will eliminate the need to include license conditions specifying requirements and prohibitions included in the EAR, BIS expects that licenses issued after December 8, 2014 will generally have a smaller number of conditions as compared to licenses issued before December 8, 2014.

The new language will allow BIS and its interagency partners to process license applications more efficiently, thereby facilitating business activities. License applicants should note that the new language clarifies that BIS's licenses authorize the transaction(s) described in the license application and any letters of explanation. Therefore, license applications submitted with specific and detailed information will be processed more efficiently than those sibmitting general or incomplete information.

Additionally, the new language specifies that license applicants are required to inform the other parties to the license of the license's scope and of any license condition(s) applicable to the individual party. License applicants who have not routinely informed other parties to the license of such information should implement procedures to ensure that such notifications occur for all licenses.

Generally speaking, the use of imprecise language on a license application causes processing delays and/or the inclusion of additional conditions. Imprecise language (e.g., phrases such as "including but not limited to") creates the impression that the license applicant is unsure or undecided about the details of the proposed transaction, therefore creating a requirement for BIS and its interagency partners to impose restrictions (in the form of conditions) on the license in order to protect the United States' national security and foreign policy interests.

The inclusion of specific information on license applications for transactions involving especially sensitive items or proposed for shipment to sensitive locations is helpful in facilitating BIS's processing. For example, before processing license applications for the export of satellites, BIS and its interagency partners need to know the name and address of the organization or company facilitating the satellite's launch. Exporters who are unsure about what specific information should be included to facilitate a license application for a specified item or to a specified location should contact BIS .

No reexport without prior authorization from the U.S. Government, unless elsewhere authorized under the EAR.

This condition is an existing prohibition under the EAR: See: § 736.2(b)(1) of the EAR – General Prohibition One and therefor does not generally need to be included on licenses. The condition will be included under certain circumstances, including if a license applicant requests reexport authorization and the request is denied.

Stated end use and end user(s) only

This limitation in scope is included in the EAR; it is redundant to include it as a license condition (See: § 750.7(a) of the EAR).

No military end use

As stated in §750.7(a) of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, if you did not include a military end use in your license application or license application support documents, such an end use is not authorized under the license. The condition may be used if the license applicant does not specify the scope of the intended end-use within the license application (and the end-use could be either civil or military).

Civil end use only

As stated in §750.7(a) of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, a condition requiring “civil end use only” is not required unless a military end use is requested in the license application or license application support documents but is not authorized by BIS.

Access/use is not granted to [embargoed destination(s)] nationals

As stated in §750.7(a) of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, if you did not specifically request access or use by persons who are nationals of an embargoed destination in your license application or license application support documents, access or use by such nationals is not authorized under the license.

No resale or transfer without prior authorization from the U.S. Government.

As stated in §750.7(a) of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, if you did not specifically request authorization to resell or transfer the items authorized for shipment in your license application or license application support documents, resale or transfer is not authorized under the license.

Applicant must inform consignee of all license conditions.

The requirement for the applicant to inform other parties to the license of the license conditions is stated in §750.7(d) of the EAR as well as in the new boilerplate language (which also requires applicants to inform the appropriate parties to the transaction of the license’s scope).

No, not if the technology is subject to the EAR, requires a license for export to the planned destination, and is not eligible for shipment under a license exception. Licenses issued by BIS authorize the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) of only the items specifically listed on the license.

If the equipment is not eligible for shipment without a license (i.e., "no license required" or NLR) or under a license exception to end users not specified on your license, you may not ship to the additional end users without additional authorization from BIS.

A license condition is a requirement on the parties to the transaction named on the license. Violation of a license condition is a violation of the EAR and may be subject to administrative or criminal penalties.

A license rider consists of clarifying or explanatory language added to a license by BIS. Although license riders are not requirements, BIS sometimes uses riders to remind license parties of requirements under the EAR. Exporters should note that BIS's inclusion of a rider on a license puts the exporter on notice regarding the specific knowledge, including requirements under the EAR, provided in the rider.

Please call BIS's Export Counseling Division at (202) 482-4811, BIS's Western Regional Office at (949) 660-0144 or BIS's Northern California branch office at (408) 998-8806. You may also send an e-mail to ECDOEXS@bis.doc.gov. Please include a telephone number for call-back purposes within your e-mail.

The following language will be included on every license issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS): "Unless limited by a condition set forth below, the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) authorized by this license is for the item(s), end-use(s), and parties described in the license application and any letters of explanation. The applicant is responsible for informing the other parties identified on the license, such as ultimate consignees and end-users, of the license's scope and of the specific conditions applicable to them. BIS has granted this license in reliance on representations the applicant made in the license application, letters of explanation, and other documents submitted."

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), in coordination with our interagency partners, made the change as part of our ongoing efforts to rationalize and make more consistent the use of conditions on BIS licenses. The purpose of the change is to eliminate, to the greatest extent possible, the inclusion of requirements and prohibitions included in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) as conditions on validated licenses. BIS is eliminating conditions specifying requirements and prohibitions included in the EAR from licenses because the EAR's conditions and requirements are applicable to all exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR as a matter of law; inclusion of such conditions on licenses is redundant.

As the new language will eliminate the need to include license conditions specifying requirements and prohibitions included in the EAR, BIS expects that licenses issued after December 8, 2014 will generally have a smaller number of conditions as compared to licenses issued before December 8, 2014.

The new language will allow BIS and its interagency partners to process license applications more efficiently, thereby facilitating business activities. License applicants should note that the new language clarifies that BIS's licenses authorize the transaction(s) described in the license application and any letters of explanation. Therefore, license applications submitted with specific and detailed information will be processed more efficiently than those sibmitting general or incomplete information.

Additionally, the new language specifies that license applicants are required to inform the other parties to the license of the license's scope and of any license condition(s) applicable to the individual party. License applicants who have not routinely informed other parties to the license of such information should implement procedures to ensure that such notifications occur for all licenses.

Generally speaking, the use of imprecise language on a license application causes processing delays and/or the inclusion of additional conditions. Imprecise language (e.g., phrases such as "including but not limited to") creates the impression that the license applicant is unsure or undecided about the details of the proposed transaction, therefore creating a requirement for BIS and its interagency partners to impose restrictions (in the form of conditions) on the license in order to protect the United States' national security and foreign policy interests.

The inclusion of specific information on license applications for transactions involving especially sensitive items or proposed for shipment to sensitive locations is helpful in facilitating BIS's processing. For example, before processing license applications for the export of satellites, BIS and its interagency partners need to know the name and address of the organization or company facilitating the satellite's launch. Exporters who are unsure about what specific information should be included to facilitate a license application for a specified item or to a specified location should contact BIS.

No reexport without prior authorization from the U.S. Government, unless elsewhere authorized under the EAR.

This condition is an existing prohibition under the EAR: See: § 736.2(b)(1) of the EAR – General Prohibition One and therefor does not generally need to be included on licenses. The condition will be included under certain circumstances, including if a license applicant requests reexport authorization and the request is denied.

Stated end use and end user(s) only

This limitation in scope is included in the EAR; it is redundant to include it as a license condition (See: § 750.7(a) of the EAR).

No military end use

As stated in §750.7(a) of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, if you did not include a military end use in your license application or license application support documents, such an end use is not authorized under the license. The condition may be used if the license applicant does not specify the scope of the intended end-use within the license application (and the end-use could be either civil or military).

Civil end use only

As stated in §750.7(a) of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, a condition requiring “civil end use only” is not required unless a military end use is requested in the license application or license application support documents but is not authorized by BIS.

Access/use is not granted to [embargoed destination(s)] nationals

As stated in §750.7(a) of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, if you did not specifically request access or use by persons who are nationals of an embargoed destination in your license application or license application support documents, access or use by such nationals is not authorized under the license.

No resale or transfer without prior authorization from the U.S. Government.

As stated in §750.7(a) of the EAR, licenses authorize only the transaction(s) described in the license application and the license application support documents. Therefore, if you did not specifically request authorization to resell or transfer the items authorized for shipment in your license application or license application support documents, resale or transfer is not authorized under the license.

Applicant must inform consignee of all license conditions.

The requirement for the applicant to inform other parties to the license of the license conditions is stated in §750.7(d) of the EAR as well as in the new boilerplate language (which also requires applicants to inform the appropriate parties to the transaction of the license’s scope).

No, not if the technology is subject to the EAR, requires a license for export to the planned destination, and is not eligible for shipment under a license exception. Licenses issued by BIS authorize the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) of only the items specifically listed on the license.

If the equipment is not eligible for shipment without a license (i.e., "no license required" or NLR) or under a license exception to end users not specified on your license, you may not ship to the additional end users without additional authorization from BIS.

A license condition is a requirement on the parties to the transaction named on the license. Violation of a license condition is a violation of the EAR and may be subject to administrative or criminal penalties.

A license rider consists of clarifying or explanatory language added to a license by BIS. Although license riders are not requirements, BIS sometimes uses riders to remind license parties of requirements under the EAR. Exporters should note that BIS's inclusion of a rider on a license puts the exporter on notice regarding the specific knowledge, including requirements under the EAR, provided in the rider.

Please call BIS's Export Counseling Division at (202) 482-4811, BIS's Western Regional Office at (949) 660-0144 or BIS's Northern California branch office at (408) 998-8806. You may also send an e-mail to ECDOEXS@bis.doc.gov. Please include a telephone number for call-back purposes within your e-mail.

The information provided with your application should include technical specifications or brochures on the items you wish to export. Information that substantiates the legitimate activities of the end-user should be supplied as well. You should also include import or end-user certificates if the item is also subject to national security controls. For items to be used in a missile project or program, at a minimum, always specify the maximum capable range and payload of the delivery system or launch vehicle. Any information regarding the specific project or program should be provided; note if there is any U.S. government funding or oversight involved. You can also include open source information from Web sites, marketing brochures, etc. All of this information will assist licensing officers in their evaluation, determination, and licensing recommendations for the case. Including this information could prevent potential delays in the processing of the case and avoid a return of the application without action. The documentation requirements for export license applications are explained in detail in Part 748 of the EAR.

I am a manufacturer of inertial navigation systems (INS) that are controlled for Missile Technology (MT) reasons. We often get calls from airlines for replacement of broken bench stock spares or INS units in permanent service. Are there any license exceptions that I can use?

Yes, depending upon the situation, License Exceptions TMP, RPL, TSU, and AVS may be available for these types of items related to safety of flight. See Part 740 of the EAR for an explanation of when these license exceptions may apply.

Yes. Section 1512 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires a Presidential certification to Congress prior to the export to China of missile technology controlled items, except for certain items used in manned aircraft. Authority for this certification has been delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, however, they can still take several months, and you should allow for substantial processing time for these applications. The Secretary must certify that the export will not be detrimental to the U.S. space launch industry and will not measurably improve the missile or space launch capabilities of China.

Items not specifically controlled for MT reasons can also be controlled under section 744.3 of the EAR ("catch-all", or EPCI, controls). Items require a license if they will be used in the design, development, production, or use of:

• Rocket systems (including ballistic missile systems, space launch vehicles, and sounding rockets) or unmanned aerial vehicles (including cruise missile systems, target drones, and reconnaissance drones) capable of a range of at least 300 km for use in or by a country listed in Country Group D:4 (see Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 of the EAR)

• Any rocket system or unmanned aerial vehicles in a D:4 country where system characteristics or use are unknown

• Any rocket systems or unmanned aerial vehicles for the delivery of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to anywhere in the world, except by governmental programs for nuclear weapons delivery of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Nuclear Weapons States that are also members of NATO

In the MTCR, as well as the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Australia Group, there is a "no undercut" policy. This means that if your license is denied because the United States determined it was detrimental to national security or foreign policy, the United States will notify the other members of the regime, who have agreed to consult with the United States before approving an export of the same or similar items to the same end-user. This does not apply to "catch all" denials of items not on the MTCR annex, but in practice many countries take into consideration denials by regime partners when reviewing other license applications.

The term "Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiative" is not defined or generally used in the Export Administration Regulations. Under its original meaning, it included both the list-based controls on missile related items (as well as chemical, biological, and nuclear items) and controls on normally uncontrolled items that need a license because of the end-use or end-user. The term "EPCI" has come to be used informally to refer to the latter "catch all" controls, and refers to the controls set out in section 744 of the EAR.

No, there are no EPCI (catch-all) controls on the manufacture of conventional arms. Conventional arms production is not an activity set out in Part 744 of the EAR. However, you need to determine if there are any activities that are described in Part 744 (i.e. missile/nuclear/chemical-biological weapons) at this facility.

Written materials that are publicly available, such as college textbooks, are not subject to the Export Administration Regulations. However, a "U.S. person," as that term is defined in the EAR, may not support certain missile activities in any of a number of ways, including the provision of goods, the performance of a contract, and employment. See Part 744.6. While the textbooks would not, in themselves require an export license, they could be part of the impermissible support that a U.S. person is providing to a missile project and amount to a violation of the EAR.

Any license application can be reviewed for all proliferation concerns (not only those stated in the reasons for control.) In this instance, the item was denied because the transaction would make a material contribution to the proliferation of missiles.

Items other than some radar, accelerometers, gyros and corresponding test equipment, software, and technology may be exported as part of a manned aircraft, land vehicle, or marine vehicle or as replacement parts for such under license exceptions TMP, RPL, TSU, and AVS. Anti-friction bearing and bearing systems (2A001) or radial ball bearings (2A101) may be exported under TMP or RPL as one-for-one replacement for equipment previously exported.

The MTCR considers missile systems or unmanned aerial vehicles that have a range of 300 km and the ability to carry a payload of 500 kg as Category I, and there is a strong presumption of denial for the export of such items. Category II missile systems and unmanned aerial vehicles are those that have a range of 300 km, but do not have the payload capability of Category I. Export of Category II systems are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Both Category I and Category II items are MTCR-controlled. Missile systems or unmanned aerial vehicles that do not meet the range and payload capabilities of Category I and Category II are not MTCR-controlled. While most Category I and II complete systems fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of State, these categorizations can impact the licensing decisions on dual-use (Commerce controlled) commodities when evaluating the intended end use of the items, the capabilities of the destination country, and the risk of diversion of items.

The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has jurisdiction over shotguns with a barrel length of 18 inches or more and related components. BIS also has jurisdiction over muzzle loading rifles and handguns, air guns, replica firearms, shotgun shells and components, and most optical sighting devices for firearms.

The first step in determining whether an export license is required is knowing whether the item you are intending to export has a specific Export Control Classification Number (ECCN). The ECCN is an alpha-numeric code, e.g., 0A984, that describes a particular item or type of item, and shows the controls placed on that item.

All ECCNs are listed in the Commerce Control List (CCL) which is in Supplement No. 1 to Part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The CCL is divided into ten broad categories. Category 0 contains ECCNs for shotguns and related items.

ECCN 0A984 controls shotguns with barrels of 18 inches or longer and certain essential components: shotgun barrels 18 inches or longer but not longer than 24 inches, receivers, breech mechanisms, complete trigger mechanisms, and magazines or magazine extension tubes. Other parts of a shotgun not listed under 0A984 or in other ECCN entries are EAR99.

Muzzle loading (black powder) firearms with a caliber less than 20 mm that were manufactured later than 1937 and are not reproductions of firearms manufactured earlier than 1890 are controlled under ECCN 0A018.c.

Shotgun shells and components fall under ECCN 0A986. This includes primers and shot. 12 gauge shotgun blanks and 12 gauge shotgun slugs (loaded) are also under this classification. Gunpowder falls under ECCN 1C992.

ECCN 0A987 controls specific sighting devices, their associated optical elements, and adjustment mechanisms. Please see the entry for a detailed description of what is controlled. Sighting devices that are not specified in this ECCN or elsewhere on the Commerce Control List, and that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of State, are EAR99.

Those that contain night vision capabilities may be under State jurisdiction. You should first contact the State Department. Any optical sighting device mounted on a rifle is under State Department jurisdiction.

Non-functioning replica firearms, whether a rifle or shotgun, are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce and are classified as EAR99. Functioning replica firearms are classified in the same manner as shotguns and rifles as noted above in terms of State/Commerce jurisdiction and ECCNs, as appropriate.

If your item falls under U.S. Department of Commerce jurisdiction and is not listed on the CCL, it is designated as EAR99. EAR99 items generally consist of low-technology consumer goods and do not require a license in most situations. However, if your proposed export of an EAR99 item is to an embargoed country, to an end-user of concern, or in support of a prohibited end-use, you may be required to obtain a license.

Once you have determined that your item is classified under a specific ECCN, you must use the information contained in the "Reason(s) for Control" section of that ECCN in combination with the "Commerce Country Chart" (see Supplement 1 to Part 738 of the EAR) to decide whether a license is required. If there is an "X" in the box for the Reason for Control and destination country, a license is required from BIS, unless a license exception is available. If there is no "X" in the box, a license is not required unless your proposed export is to an embargoed country, to an end-user of concern, or in support of a prohibited end-use, in which case you may be required to obtain a license.

License applications must be submitted through SNAP-R, the on-line license application system. In order to access the SNAP-R system, you must first obtain a Company Identification Number (CIN). Obtaining a CIN is the first step toward completing your license application and must be completed in order to access the actual SNAP-R application. Instructions to complete this process can be found at the following hyperlink: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/licensing/simplified-network-application-process-redesign-snap-r

BIS requires an Import Certificate or equivalent official document for ECCNs 0A984, 0A986, or 0A987 for export to Canada, Mexico, and Central and South America per section 748.14 of the EAR. Applicants must request that their importer obtain the Import Certificate or an equivalent official document from the government of the importing country. Otherwise, a Statement by Ultimate Consignee and Purchaser (form BIS 711) is required per section 748.11 of the EAR.

License Exception BAG authorizes a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident alien leaving the U.S. to export or reexport shotguns with a barrel length 18 inches or over and shotgun shells provided that not more than three shotguns may be taken on any one trip; the shotguns and shotgun shells must be with the person's baggage (may not be mailed) and they must be for the person's exclusive use for legitimate use. See section 740.14(e) of the EAR for specific requirements in the use of BAG.

This rule amended Section 742.10 (15 CFR 742.10) of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774) to revise the general licensing policy of denial to one of case-by-case review for exports and reexports to Sudan of certain telecommunications equipment and associated computers, software, and technology, including items that are useful for the development of civil telecommunications network infrastructure. It also revised License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD), Section 740.19 of the EAR (15 CFR 740.19), which previously applied only to Cuba, to authorize exports and reexports of such devices to Sudan, either for sale or donation. This rule also made conforming changes to License Exception Temporary Imports, Export, Reexports and Transfers (in-country) (TMP) (Section 740.9 of the EAR (15 CFR 740.9). Finally, it removed a license requirement for reexports to Sudan of certain telecommunications software.

No. Due to Sudan's designation as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism" by the Secretary of State, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) maintains license requirements with a general policy of denial for exports and reexports of most items on the Commerce Control List to most end users in Sudan. Revised License Exception CCD permits exports and reexports of certain eligible commodities and software on the CCL to Sudan that previously required a license. Items designated as "EAR99" (subject to the EAR but not described on the Commerce Control List) continue to be eligible for export and reexport to Sudan without a license in the absence of end-use or end-user concerns set forth in Part 744 of the EAR. The changes made pursuant to the rule implement the U.S. Government's policy objective of facilitating communication and the free flow of information among the Sudanese people.

Because OFAC and BIS share jurisdiction over certain exports and reexports to Sudan, these changes have been made in coordination with OFAC, which simultaneously has issued parallel amendments to the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 538. Please see OFAC FAQs for further information pertaining to the Department of Treasury changes. [Most items that qualify for export or reexport to Sudan under revised License Exception CCD also qualify for export and reexport to Sudan under OFAC's new general license, as set forth in 31 CFR 538.533, published contemporaneously with the new BIS rule. Therefore, in most cases, you do not need a specific license from OFAC for the export or reexport of items described in License Exception CCD.] Exporters should review both 31 CFR 538.533 and License Exception CCD to ensure compliance with applicable export license requirements.

Most items described on the Commerce Control List require authorization in the form of a license from BIS for export or reexport to Sudan under Section 742.10 of the EAR, the provision that establishes license requirements and related license review policies for exports and reexports to Sudan. License Exception CCD is an example of an authorization that allows persons to export or reexport certain enumerated consumer communications devices subject to the EAR to Sudan that would otherwise require a license from BIS. If a license exception is available for a contemplated export or reexport to Sudan, the licensing requirements specified in Section 742.10 do not apply. The availability of License Exception CCD, however, is restricted to exports and reexports under certain defined circumstances. Please review Section 740.2 of the EAR, which contains restrictions on the availability of all license exceptions, including License Exception CCD. You should also review the General Prohibitions set forth in Part 736 and the license requirements and policies set forth in Part 744 (end-use and end-user concerns). Persons who are unfamiliar with the structure of the EAR or the relationship of license exceptions to license requirements generally may wish to consult the BIS online training room

For the purposes of License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD), a "consumer" item is an item that is: (1) generally available to the public by being sold, without restriction, from stock at retail selling points by means of any of the following: (a) over-the counter transactions; (b) mail order transactions; (c) electronic transactions; or (d) telephone call transactions; and (2) designed for installation by the user without further substantial support by the supplier. In Section 740.19 (b) of the EAR, the term "consumer" describes the types of computers ((b) (1)), disk drives and storage equipment ((b)(2)), information security equipment, software, and peripherals ((b)(12)), and software ((b)(17)) that may be exported under License Exception CCD. The definition of "consumer" applies regardless of whether the item being exported or reexported is sold or donated.

Instruction manuals or other information on how to assemble and use tools and equipment authorized for export or reexport under License Exception CCD likely fall into one of three categories. They may be eligible for License Exception Technology and Software Unrestricted (TSU) (Section 740.13(a) of the EAR) or constitute published information and software that is not subject to the EAR (Section 734.7 of the EAR), or they may not be subject to the EAR because they do not constitute "use" technology or other categories of technology (see Part 772 of the EAR). However, if such information is subject to the EAR, it may require a BIS license for export or reexport to Sudan.

Yes, if the software upgrades, fixes, or patches meet all the criteria described in License Exception CCD. Specifically, the items must be: 1) consumer communication devices as defined in License Exception CCD and 2) classified on the Commerce Control List under an ECCN that is expressly authorized for export or reexport under the license exception.

License Exception CCD Section (c) (1) (iii) does not authorize the export or reexport of communications devices to the Government of Sudan, including entities owned, operated or controlled by the Government of Sudan, apart from certain consumer software listed in paragraph (b)(12) or (b)(17) that is distributed free of charge. Consequently, the Government of Sudan is an ineligible recipient of items such as telecommunications infrastructure equipment, computers, technology, and software (apart from the carve-out described), under the license exception. A license is therefore required for the export or reexport of such items to Sudan government owned, operated, or controlled companies. All items that require a license for export or reexport to the Government of Sudan will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

As part of a January 16, 2015 rule that amended the EAR to reflect changes in the U.S. Government's Cuba policy, License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD) was amended to authorize commercial sales, in addition to donations, of eligible items. Additionally, technical revisions were made in that rule to more precisely track the current technical specifications for some of the specified items. The Sudan rule provides that certain items, namely, Global Positioning System receivers and similar satellite receivers, are available under CCD for export and reexport to Sudan.

No. Your item must meet all the criteria of License Exception CCD to qualify for export or reexport under License Exception CCD. The item must be: 1) a consumer communications device as defined in License Exception CCD, and 2) classified on the Commerce Control List under an ECCN that is expressly authorized for export under the license exception.

If you are not sure whether your item is on the CCL or what ECCN applies to it, you may seek an official Commodity Classification (CCAT) from BIS in accordance with Section 748.3 of the EAR. You may submit a request for an official commodity classification through BIS's online SNAP-R System.

Please note that a CCAT will determine the ECCN that applies to your item or, alternatively, designate your item as EAR99. However, a CCAT will not state whether your item is a "consumer" communications device that may be exported or reexported under License Exception CCD. If you have questions about whether an item would qualify for export or reexport under License Exception CCD, including questions as to whether the item would constitute a consumer communications device for purposes of License Exception CCD, you may consult BIS's Foreign Policy Division at 202-482-4252 or submit an advisory opinion request in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 748.3 of the EAR. You may also submit a license application as explained in the FAQ below.

No. Your item must meet all the criteria of License Exception CCD to qualify for export or reexport under License Exception CCD including meeting the definition of a "consumer" communications device that is set forth in the CCD license exception. If your item is listed on the CCL but you are unsure whether it is a consumer communications device, you may submit an application for license using BIS's SNAP-R system. If BIS determines that a license is required, BIS will process the application and apply the licensing policy outlined in Section 742.10 of the EAR. You may also seek an advisory opinion from BIS.

Yes. BIS may authorize your export or reexport under a license when the export or reexport does not qualify for License Exception CCD. BIS will consider, on a case-by-case basis, applications to export or reexport telecommunications equipment and associated computers, software and technology for civil end use. In particular, BIS recognizes the significance of telecommunications items that are useful for the development of civil telecommunications network infrastructure.The facilitation of the free flow of information in Sudan can only occur effectively if there is adequate telecommunications infrastructure to support the consumer communications devices authorized by License Exception CCD. Consequently, BIS will review applications to export and reexport telecommunications-related items, including items useful for the development of civil telecommunications network infrastructure, on a case-by-case basis. License applicants should describe the specific civil end use of the items and their function in the development of civil telecom network infrastructure (see note to Section 742.10(b) (3)) in their license applications or in letters of explanation attached to the applications.

Yes. The terms of License Exception CCD do not require that items be exported or reexported directly to the end user. Consequently, exports and reexports to Sudan to commercial entities for resale to eligible end users would qualify for License Exception CCD. Eligible end users include individuals and independent non-governmental organizations operating in Sudan. Apart from certain specified consumer software that is distributed free of charge, the Government of Sudan may not be the end-user. An independent non-governmental organization that is owned, operated, or controlled by the Government of Sudan is not eligible to receive items under License Exception CCD. Persons wishing to use License Exception CCD are responsible for determining that the criteria of the license exception will be met. Please be advised nothing in License Exception CCD excuses a U.S. person from the need to comply with the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations.

Exporters and reexporters of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations may export or reexport hardware and software to Sudanese academic and training organizations without a BIS license if the transaction meets all the requirements of License Exception CCD. If such items also meet the requirements of the OFAC general license pertaining to certain software, hardware, and services incident to personal communications (31 CFR Section 538.533), an OFAC specific license would not be required for their export or reexport. (For definitive guidance on OFAC requirements, please consult with that agency.) Please note that not all Sudanese academic and training organizations would be authorized to receive these items under the license exception. Apart from certain specified consumer software that is distributed free of charge, License Exception CCD only applies to items destined for organizations or entities that are not part of the Sudanese Government (including owned, operated, or controlled by the government). Also, not all of the hardware and software described in this question will meet the requirements of License Exception CCD. In those cases, persons must apply for a BIS license and OFAC license to engage in the transaction. Sudanese academic and training organizations should contact the manufacturers and providers of these items directly to seek the classification number of the item they wish to import to Sudan and to learn whether they may receive the items and, if so, under what circumstances.

Yes. You may use License Exception TMP (section 740.9 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)) to temporarily export (as well as reexport to Sudan, or transfer (in-country)) employer-owned consumer communications devices and related software described in License Exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD) (section 740.19(b) of the EAR) as “Tools of Trade” under EAR section 740.9(a)(2). You must comply with all of the requirements and limitations set forth in section 740.9(a)(2), including with respect to permissible users and authorized purposes. This revision to License Exception TMP took effect on September 2, 2015.

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) publishes the names of certain foreign persons – including businesses, research institutions, government and private organizations, individuals, and other types of legal persons - that are subject to specific license requirements for the export, reexport and/or transfer (in-country) of specified items. These persons comprise the Entity List, which is found at Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The persons on the Entity List are subject to individual licensing requirements and policies supplemental to those found elsewhere in the EAR.

BIS first published the Entity List in February 1997 as part of its efforts to inform the public of entities that have engaged in activities that could result in an increased risk of the diversion of exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) items to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Since its initial publication, grounds for inclusion on the Entity List have expanded to activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests.

The Entity List is found in Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 C.F.R. Part 744, Supp. No. 4). The most recent version of the EAR can be found here and the Entity List can be accessed here. If you would like to subscribe to BIS’s e-mail notification service that will alert you when BIS publishes rules in the Federal Register, including rules implementing changes to the Entity List, please click here.

You should check the Entity List because exports, reexports, and/or transfers (in-country) to those persons named on the Entity List are subject to licensing requirements and policies in addition to those elsewhere in the EAR. Failure to adhere to EAR licensing requirements is a violation of the EAR and could result in criminal and/or civil penalties. BIS recommends that exporters screen the parties to transactions against the Entity List as a standard part of pre-transaction due diligence activities.

Yes. However, BIS considers that transactions of any nature with listed entities carry a "red flag" and recommends that U.S. companies proceed with caution with respect to such transactions. Note that the Entity List describes license requirements and policies for the export, reexport, and/or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR only. Additionally, although many of the persons included on the Entity List are subject to policies of denial for the export, reexport, and/or transfer (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR, some are subject to policies and requirements that are narrower in scope (i.e., not all persons included on the Entity List are subject to license requirements for all items subject to the EAR, while others are subject to license requirements for all or some items listed on the Commerce Control List (CCL)). Be sure to review the licensing policy and requirements carefully.

As set forth in the answer to question 28, both BIS and other agencies in the U.S. Government maintain other lists of entities for which there are restrictions on doing business. In addition, the provisions of part 744 of the EAR, including § 744.6 of the EAR, apply to transactions regardless of whether the entity in question is listed on the Entity List or not.

Additionally, BIS recommends that exporters, reexporters, or persons transferring (in-country) items subject to the EAR review the U.S. Government’s list of proscribed persons to ensure that a proposed transaction does not violate other U. S. Government requirements.

Each entity on the Entity List is assigned a specific licensing requirement on the basis of the national security and/or foreign policy considerations associated with the entity’s designation on the Entity List. Within the Entity List, the information for each listed entity includes the license requirement, license review policy, and Federal Register citation(s). License requirements vary from “all items subject to the EAR,” which includes items on the CCL as well as EAR99 items, to all items on the CCL, or to all items on the CCL except for specified items.

BIS reviews license applications that include listed entities according to the entity’s role in the proposed transaction and the specific license review policy(ies) set forth for the entity(ies) on the Entity List. Note that while transactions outside of the scope of the license review policy for a listed entity are not prohibited, BIS considers that such transactions carry a "red flag."

Section 744.1(c) of the EAR generally prohibits the use of license exceptions for almost all exports and reexports to listed entities. However, if one or more license exceptions are available to a listed entity, the availability will be noted in the licensing requirements information specific to that entity.

The Entity List is subject to ongoing review and revision. All changes to the Entity List are published in the Federal Register. You can subscribe to a BIS e-mail notification service that will alert you when EAR rules are published in the Federal Register, including rules implementing changes to the Entity List, by clicking here.

The removal of an entity from the Entity List removes only the additional license requirements imposed by its listing on the Entity List, and does not modify the other license requirements that may be applicable under the EAR (i.e., as a result of an item’s classification on the CCL or the proposed country of destination for the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country)). Additionally, if you know or have been informed that the item proposed for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) will be used in nuclear, missile, and/or chemical and biological weapons programs, you must seek a license pursuant to the requirements found in Part 744 of the EAR. You should also consult the other export screening lists maintained by BIS and other U.S. Government agencies to determine whether other license requirements or sanctions apply. In summary, you should conduct the same due diligence as you would for any other export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR.

This is a "red flag" and the exporter must undertake sufficient due diligence to verify that the company co-located with the listed entity is not, in fact, the listed entity and does not intend to transfer (in-country) the requested items to the listed entity.

As this is a "red flag", BIS recommends that detailed due diligence be undertaken. You should conduct due diligence by examining other factors to determine if the company you want to export to is the same as the listed entity. Such factors may include, but are not limited to, the company’s name, address, corporate officers, business activities, contact information, etc. You may be able to locate this information via the company’s website or through internet search results.

Persons on the Entity List are subject to the licensing policy and requirements defined in their specific entries on the Entity List regardless of their location. BIS works to revise and correct the entries on the Entity List on a regular basis, in order to ensure that each entry reflects the most accurate and recent information for the person named in that entry. However, if your due diligence indicates that the person to whom you wish to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is designated on the Entity List, then, regardless of the address listed in the Entity List entry, you should follow the licensing requirements set forth in the Entity List for that person.

No, not all sections of Part 744 of the EAR (which defines the criteria for possible inclusion on the Entity List) require that a person’s alleged activity involve items subject to the EAR. Section 744.11, for example, requires that the person’s activities be contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests but does not require that the activities involve items subject to the EAR.

Yes; this process was articulated in BIS’s August 2008 revision of the EAR titled “Authorization to Impose License Requirements for Exports or Reexports to Entities Acting Contrary to the National Security or Foreign Policy Interests of the United States.”

As a result of the August 2008 rule, §744.16 of the EAR defines the procedures that allow a person listed on the Entity List to submit a written request to the End-User Review Committee (ERC) that its entry be removed or modified. The request must be made in English and the party must provide a basis for the removal or modification. After the ERC has reviewed the request and reached a decision, BIS’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration will provide the decision in a written response to the requesting party. The decision communicated to the party by the Deputy Assistant Secretary is final. BIS will publish any modifications to, or removals from, the Entity List resulting from such appeals in the Federal Register. The timeframe for appeals is 30 calendar days after the ERC’s receipt of the appeal (note that BIS conducts an internal review of all appeals prior to referral to the ERC that may add to this timeframe).

Please note that if a party on the Entity List submits an appeal, it remains subject to the Entity List's licensing requirements while the appeal is being processed. In order for a party to be released from the additional licensing requirements imposed by being on the Entity List, two actions must occur: 1) the appeal must be approved by the ERC, and 2) a formal notice of the party’s removal from the Entity List must be published in the Federal Register.

Yes. As set forth in Supplement No. 5 to Part 744 of the EAR, proposed changes to the Entity List are reviewed and approved by the interagency End-User Review Committee (ERC). Comprised of representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy, the ERC is chaired by a Commerce employee. In addition to the review of appeals, the ERC reviews the Entity List on an annual basis. Any ERC member agency may also recommend changes to the Entity List on an ad-hoc basis.

You should call the Office of Exporter Services at 202-482-4811, or e-mail them a question via the website. Pursuant to the guidance in §748.3 of the EAR, you may also submit an advisory opinion request to the End-User Review Committee Chair at ERC@bis.doc.gov, or call the Committee Chair directly at 202-482-5991.

Subsidiaries, parent companies, and sister companies are legally distinct from listed entities. Therefore, the licensing and other obligations imposed on a listed entity by virtue of its being listed do not per se apply to its subsidiaries, parent companies, sister companies, or other legally distinct affiliates that are not listed on the Entity List. If, however, such a company, or even an unaffiliated company, acts as an agent, a front, or a shell company for the listed entity in order to facilitate transactions that would not otherwise be permissible with the listed entity, then the company is likely violating, inter alia, General Prohibition 10, EAR section 764.2(b) (causing, aiding, or abetting a violation) and possibly other subsections of 764.2 as well.

Those who export, reexport, or transfer items subject to the EAR with knowledge that the items are destined to a subsidiary, sister, parent, or other affiliate of a listed entity are encouraged to take extra due diligence steps to ensure that (i) the items are not ultimately destined for the listed entity and (ii) the affiliate is a separate legal entity (as opposed to a branch or operating division of the listed entity). If one is uncertain whether a planned transaction involving an actor with some relationship to a listed entity would be affected by the obligations pertaining to the listed entity, one may seek an advisory opinion from BIS pursuant to section 748.3.

Branches and operating divisions of a listed entity are, by definition, part of the listed entity. They are not legally distinct entities. Therefore, with one exception pertaining to hospitals and medical centers of the Department of Atomic Energy entities in India (see FAQ #39), the licensing and other obligations imposed on a listed entity also apply to its branches and operating divisions.

The Entity List license requirements do not extend to parent companies unless the applicable listing for the company so states. Exporters, reexporters, and transferors are reminded that the EAR imposes licensing requirements, such as end-user and end-use based restrictions in Part 744 of the EAR, that could apply to such companies even if they are legally separate from the listed entity.

The licensing policies and requirements cited on the Entity List extend to the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR to the persons included on the Entity List. Therefore, a transaction that involves a listed entity in which that entity is not the consignee of the goods is not a transaction subject to a license under the entity’s listing on the Entity List. However, BIS considers that a transaction involving the use of a listed entity as a freight forwarder or carrier carries a "red flag" and suggests that you exercise caution and strong oversight if you opt to engage a listed entity for these services. Although the freight forwarder or carrier may not be the end-user of the item(s) you are exporting, reexporting, or transferring (in-country), the freight forwarder/carrier will likely have access to the item(s) being exported, reexported, and/or transferred (in-country), thereby increasing the chance that the item(s) you are shipping will be diverted. Further, BIS recommends consulting the other export screening lists maintained by the U.S. Government to ensure that your use of the listed entity as a freight forwarder/carrier does not violate sanctions or restrictions administered by other U.S. Government agencies.

BIS does not prohibit the sale or transfer of commodities subject to the EAR to persons on the Entity List if those persons are in the United States. However, the release of software source code or technology in the United States to a person on the Entity List or a person employed by or representing an organization on the Entity List may require a license as a “deemed export.” Should such a person depart the United States, a license will be required for the export of commodities and software (other than software source code) consistent with the entity’s listing on the Entity List. In addition, if at the time of the domestic sale or transfer in the United States, the transferor or seller had “knowledge” that the person on the Entity List or the person employed by or representing the organization on the Entity List intended to export the item(s) out of the United States without obtaining BIS authorization, a violation of the EAR under §736.2(b)(10) (General Prohibition Ten) and §764.2(e) may occur. BIS recommends that exporters exercise a high level of due diligence prior to entering into a transaction with any person on the Entity List, regardless of where that person is located. Note also that the release outside of the United States of software source code or technology subject to the EAR to a person on the Entity List or a person employed by or representing an organization on the Entity List may require a license or other EAR authorization prior to the “deemed reexport” of that software source code or technology.

BIS does not have jurisdiction over the import of items into the United States. However, you should consult other lists maintained by the U.S. Government, as sanctions or other restrictions may apply to import transactions with the particular listed entity or from that particular country of import. BIS publishes a consolidated version of all of the U.S. Government lists that may be relevant to your transaction.

Yes, if you can ensure that the entity acting as your agent does not have access to the item(s) prohibited by the Entity List’s licensing requirements and policies. Note that BIS recommends that, as a "red flag" is associated with such transactions, you exercise caution and strong oversight if you opt to engage a sales agent that is, or is owned by, a listed entity. Note that the licensing requirements specified on the Entity List will apply if the sales agent has access to the restricted item being exported, reexported or transferred (in-country), including items that the sales agent would, in the normal course of business, use for product demonstrations. Further, you should check other lists maintained by the U.S. Government as sanctions or other restrictions may apply to transactions with the particular listed entity.

The Bureau of Industry & Security’s jurisdiction is limited to the export, reexport and transfer (in-country) of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the placement of a person on the Entity List imposes supplemental license requirements and license application review policies on the shipment of items subject to the EAR to that person. Although a person’s inclusion on the Entity List does not create a prohibition on purchases from that person, companies contemplating such purchases should note that BIS suggests that there are red flags on the purchase of U.S.-origin items and other items subject to the EAR from Entity List persons. Companies need to exercise additional due diligence to ensure that the items desired for purchase, should they be U.S. origin or otherwise subject to the EAR, were sent to the company listed on the Entity List with the appropriate authorization. Anyone seeking to purchase items from a company listed on the Entity List should note that the Entity List is made up of entities about whom the United States Government found there to be reasonable cause to believe that the entity has been involved, is involved, or poses a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the U.S. government, and those acting on behalf of such entities.

A student’s enrollment at a university included on the Entity List is a “red flag” which requires exporters undertake an additional level of due diligence before proceeding with any such transaction. However, a student is not an integral part of the university (e.g., does not have fiduciary duty to from the university in the same manner that as an employee, officer, trustee, or person in a similar position in the university would) in which he/she is enrolled and therefore BIS does not include them in the licensing requirements and policy specific to the university. With the caveat of the red flag mentioned above, BIS advises exporters to treat exports, reexports, and transfers (in country) to students as shipments to the country of which the student is a citizen.

Pursuant to §734.8 of the EAR, information resulting from fundamental research is not subject to the EAR. Therefore, given that the collaboration remains limited to fundamental research, it cannot be subject to the Entity List’s licensing requirements and policies. Any research undertaken that involves the export, reexport, or transfer of an item subject to the EAR and that does not conform to the requirements of § 734.8 of the EAR may, depending on the licensing requirements and policies specified in the Entity List entry, require a license from BIS.

Employees of persons on the Entity List are subject to the licensing requirements and policies specific to their employer. Therefore, in the case of universities on the Entity List, employees of the universities are subject to the same licensing policy and requirements that the universities are. This also applies to officers, trustees, and other persons in a similar position with the university.

It depends on what your company wants to donate, whether BIS requires a license for the export, reexport, or transfer of that item to the university (as specified in the Entity List entry for the university), and, given that a license is required, whether BIS approves your license application.

The Departments of Commerce, State, and the Treasury maintain separate lists for the programs each agency administers because these programs have different purposes and are regulated under different authorities.

BIS maintains three lists: the Denied Persons List (DPL); the Unverified List; and the Entity List. The Entity List is described in detail in these FAQs and can be found here.

The DPL lists persons that have been denied export privileges; any dealings with persons listed on the DPL that violate the terms of their denial order would be a violation of the EAR. The DPL can be found here.

The Unverified List is a list of parties that have not cooperated with BIS during post-shipment verification checks. The presence of a party on the Unverified List in a transaction is a “red flag” that must be resolved before proceeding with the transaction. The Unverified List can be found here.

The Departments of the Treasury and State maintain other lists that should be consulted before exporting, reexporting, or transferring item(s). These lists include the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List, the Debarred List, and the lists of persons subject to Nonproliferation Sanctions. You can find links to these lists here.

A consolidated version of all of the U.S. Government proscribed parties lists is available here.

The Entity List includes restrictions on exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to certain persons by reference, meaning that the EAR defines the licensing policy and requirements specific to such persons but does not necessarily include them as individual entries on the Entity List. These persons are designated in or pursuant to Executive Orders or other legal mechanisms. Examples of such persons include but are not limited to Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs), as referenced in §744.12 of the EAR, and Specially Designated Terrorists (SDTs), as referenced in §744.13 of the EAR.

In incorporating the lists maintained by other U.S. Government (USG) agencies by reference, BIS is clarifying the EAR licensing requirements and policies applicable to the entities on the other USG lists. BIS recommends that exporters, reexporters, or transferors in-country consult the other lists maintained by the USG when exporting, reexporting, and/or transferring (in-country) items since, in many cases, they will not be required to also seek separate authorization from BIS. Note, however, that in some cases an EAR authorization may still be required. See §§ 744.8, 744.12, 744.13, 744.14, 744.18, and 744.22 of the EAR for additional details. In other words, EAR license requirements supplement those of the other USG agencies.

No. The SDN List is published by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The SDN List has different foreign policy objectives and legal requirements than the Entity List.

No. Although both the Denied Persons List (DPL) and the Entity List are administered by the Department of Commerce, they are separate and distinct lists. The DPL includes parties that have been denied export and reexport privileges. In contrast, the Entity List imposes specific license requirements for the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of specified items to the persons named on it.

No. Hospitals and medical centers of Indian Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) entities are not—and were never intended to be--captured by the Entity List. Consequently, hospitals and medical centers of DAE entities are not subject to the Entity List’s licensing requirements. Note that the licensing requirements found elsewhere in the EAR may be applicable to such hospitals and medical centers. Such hospitals and medical centers would also be generally subject to destination-based licensing requirements that apply to India.

This list is published in the IAEA’s Information Circular titled "Agreement between the Government of India and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities" (INFCIRC/754), which is available at the IAEA’s website (www.iaea.org). In this document there is an annex (the "List of Facilities Subject to Safeguards Under the Agreement Between the Government of India and The International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities") that contains the list of nuclear reactors (including power plants) and fuel fabrication facilities under IAEA safeguards. Please note that this list is updated regularly with the publication of documents titled "Agreement between the Government of India and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities: Addition to the List of Facilities Subject to Safeguards Under the Agreement" and that these updates are numbered as follows: INFCIRC/754/Add.1, INFCIRC/754/Add.2, INFCIRC/754/Add.3, etc. BIS recommends that exporters check the most recent version of the list on a regular basis by searching the IAEA’s website for "INFCIRC/754". As of November 18, 2013, the most recent version of this document is INFCIRC/754/Add.4.

The Validated End-User (VEU) program is an innovative trade-facilitating program that enhances high-technology civilian trade between the United States and VEU-eligible countries (currently, China and India). Use of Authorization VEU reduces the licensing burden on industry by allowing U.S. exporters to ship designated items to pre-approved entities under a general authorization instead of individual export licenses.

Established in 2007, the VEU Program uses a market-based approach to facilitate high-technology trade (see the 2007 rule introducing the VEU program here). The program permits entities in eligible destinations that pass a rigorous interagency review and agree to ongoing compliance obligations to receive, under Authorization VEU, the same items that they could previously receive under individual Commerce Department licenses.

The list of qualified VEUs is in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The list of qualified VEUs can be accessed here. If you would like to subscribe to BIS’s email notification service that will alert you when BIS publishes rules in the Federal Register, including rules implementing changes to the VEU List, please click here.

Currently, any entity in an eligible country may apply for the VEU program. Exporters and reexporters may also apply on behalf of entities in eligible destinations. Applicants must clearly demonstrate the end-user’s ability to comply with the requirements of the VEU program. Such requirements include using the items shipped under Authorization VEU for civil end-uses only and the provision of the end-user’s written consent for the U.S. Government to conduct periodic on-site reviews at VEU facilities.

Applicants can choose which and how many facilities to include in applications for VEU status. Note that a facility authorized to receive items under VEU may not transfer the items imported under its VEU authorization to another location that has not been specifically approved for VEU status, even if that other location is part of the same corporate entity.

No. Items controlled on the Commerce Control List (Part 774 of the EAR) for missile technology (MT) or crime control (CC) reasons are not eligible to be authorized for shipment under Authorization VEU. Additionally, items exported under Authorization VEU may not be used for any activities described in Part 744 of the EAR. Accordingly, asserting that an item is being exported pursuant to Authorization VEU when it is destined for use in any of the activities described in Part 744 would constitute a violation of the EAR.

Further, the items eligible for shipment to each individual VEU are specified in the individual entries found in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR. These are the only items that may be shipped to the VEU under Authorization VEU. Note that within any VEU listing, certain items may be authorized for shipment to some but not all of a VEU’s eligible facilities.

As noted above, only specifically listed, eligible items may be shipped to a VEU pursuant to Authorization VEU. In accordance with relevant statutory requirements and pursuant to Section 748.15(c) of the EAR, BIS does not authorize items controlled for missile technology (MT) or crime control (CC) reasons under the VEU program. Additionally, pursuant to Section 748.15(d) of the EAR, items obtained under Authorization VEU may be used only for civil end-uses, and specifically not for any activities described in Part 744 of the EAR.

Finally, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) made under Authorization VEU are allowed only if the items’ end-user is a validated end-user. VEUs may only: a) use the received items at their approved facility(ies) as listed in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748; b) consume the items during use; and c) transfer or reexport the items only as authorized by BIS.

A “validated end-user” (VEU) is an entity that has been qualified as a participant in the VEU program. For each VEU, the EAR lists “eligible destinations,” which are the specific facilities of each VEU that are authorized to receive specified eligible items under Authorization VEU. A VEU may be listed with one or many eligible facilities, but note that VEUs may own or operate facilities that are not eligible destinations. Facilities owned or operated by VEUs that are not specifically listed as eligible destinations in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR are not eligible to receive items under Authorization VEU.

Entities that will benefit the most from participation in the VEU program typically are those that place orders for dual-use items classified on the Commerce Control List, such as chemicals and electronic components, on a regular basis with U.S. exporters. Generally speaking, qualification as a VEU will be most easily obtained by entities that already maintain export compliance systems and are experienced in complying with U.S. export control laws and regulations.

VEU-eligible destinations are currently limited to China and India while the Bureau of Industry and Security completes implementation of the VEU program. Once the program is fully implemented, the U.S. Government may decide to make participation in the VEU program available in other countries.

End-users in eligible destinations can apply directly to the Department of Commerce for VEU authorization status or exporters or reexporters may file applications on behalf of such end-users. Prospective VEUs must provide detailed information on how they will ensure that they are in compliance the requirements of the VEU program. Additional information may be requested by the U.S. Government while a VEU application is being reviewed.

Once an end-user applies to be a VEU, the End-User Review Committee, which is a committee composed of representatives from multiple U.S. Government agencies, reviews the application and determines:

If the prospective VEU is a reliable recipient of U.S. controlled items.

If the prospective VEU meets the VEU criteria.

If approved, which of the prospective VEU’s requested facilities would be able to receive which items under Authorization VEU.

BIS has prepared a VEU application template to assist entities requesting VEU authorization. Additionally, Supplement No. 8 to Part 748 of the EAR outlines the information required in requests for VEU authorization. Note that the U.S. Government may request additional information from a prospective VEU while a VEU application is being reviewed.

BIS encourages entities to submit draft VEU applications to ERC@bis.doc.gov. BIS will review and provide comments on the draft application, and also will provide draft applications to the other members of the End-User Review Committee for review and comment, if requested by applicants.

Each application for VEU authorization must include an original statement on letterhead, signed and dated by a person who has legal authority to bind the applicant, certifying that the end-user will comply with all VEU requirements. Furthermore, the letter must state that the end-user:

Has been informed of and understands that the item(s) it may receive under authorization VEU will be exported in compliance with the EAR and use or diversion of such items contrary to the EAR is prohibited.

Understands and will adhere to all authorization VEU restrictions, including the requirement that items shipped under authorization VEU will only be used for civil end-uses and will not be used for any activities described in Part 744 of the EAR.

Will comply with VEU recordkeeping requirements.

Agrees to allow on-site reviews by U.S. Government officials to verify the end-user’s compliance with the conditions of the VEU authorization.

Prospective VEUs must provide written certification to the U.S. Government that the items proposed for receipt under Authorization VEU will be used in accordance with VEU program restrictions, and must provide detailed information to verify compliance with the overall requirements of the VEU program (e.g., an internal compliance plan). Additionally, VEUs are often required to comply with conditions similar to those found in individual licenses, as well as to submit regular reports on their use of the items received under Authorization VEU to the U.S. Government.

Entities applying for qualification as a VEU must also agree to allow the U.S. Government to conduct inspections of the facility or facilities in which the U.S. origin items received under Authorization VEU will be used. These inspections are known as “on-site reviews,” and are similar to the “end-use checks” that the U.S. Government routinely conducts at facilities that have imported U.S.-origin items under individual licenses.

There is no time limit on VEU status. However, the U.S. Government may amend or revoke a VEU’s status at any time, as circumstances warrant. The U.S. Government will revoke qualification as a VEU if sufficient information exists to demonstrate that an organization is no longer capable of, or is not complying with, the requirements of the VEU program. Changes made to the VEU program and published in the Federal Register, such as eligible destination changes or other program-based amendments, might also impact the VEU status of a particular entity.

Yes, they do, pursuant to §748.15(a)(4) of the EAR. Once in receipt of information regarding a material change, BIS provides it to the interagency End-User Review Committee for review and discussion. The End-User Review Committee may decide to revoke or amend VEU authorization based on such reports.

Yes. VEUs can request amendments to their authorizations at any time. Such requests should be submitted to BIS and should include a complete explanation of the requested amendment and of the basis for it.

The list of qualified VEUs (found in Supplement No. 8 to Part 748 of the EAR) is updated on an as-needed basis to accommodate the qualification of new entities in the VEU program as well as amendments to existing VEU authorizations.

During the first three years of the program (2007-2010), the Bureau of Industry and Security interacted on a regular basis with participants in the VEU program. In addition to e-mail and telephone contact, BIS and certain of its interagency colleagues held meetings with VEUs and visited VEU facilities.

Yes. Authorization VEU is available for export from the United States, reexport, and transfer (in-country) of the items specified for each VEU in the list of “Eligible Items (by ECCN)” found in Supplement No. 8 to Part 748 of the EAR. If the item was legally exported or reexported to an eligible destination and is an “eligible item” for another VEU, it may be transferred within the same country to the other VEU’s eligible facilities under Authorization VEU.

No, not under Authorization VEU. If the item is not an “eligible item,” Authorization VEU is not applicable. If the item requires a license for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to the VEU, such a shipment will require a different kind of authorization (e.g., an individual license or a license exception, if available). VEUs are only authorized to receive the items that are specifically listed by Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) in Supplement No. 8 to Part 748 of the EAR under Authorization VEU. All other items are subject to standard EAR licensing requirements.

The guidance in §750.7(i) of the EAR (“Terminating license conditions”) applies to items authorized for shipment under Authorization VEU. If an item authorized for shipment under Authorization VEU as an “eligible item” no longer requires a license for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to VEU eligible destinations as the result of a change to the Commerce Control List (Part 774 of the EAR), then the conditions and limitations of the VEU program and of the VEU’s specific VEU authorization no longer apply to the shipment or to the ongoing use by the VEU of the affected item as of the date of the final publication of the rule implementing the lessening or elimination of export control requirements.

The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Commerce, and other agencies as appropriate, is responsible for determining whether to add to, to remove from, or otherwise amend the list of VEUs and associated eligible items. The Department of Commerce chairs the ERC.

Yes, applicants can ask the ERC to reconsider decisions with respect to the disposition of their own applications, and VEUs may ask the ERC to reconsider decisions with respect to amendments of their own VEU authorizations. The ERC asks that any such request be made in writing and include information additional to that already provided to the ERC and specific to the basis for the request for reconsideration.

Yes. The U.S. Government consults on a regular basis with the governments of both China and India. Prospective VEU applicants should be aware that the governments of VEU-eligible countries may have their own requirements specific to the VEU program and application thereof.